Truth In Advertising

[The Aire]

We all know that photoshop is used to make models and scenery look better than they really are, and on the surface there's nothing wrong with that. But let's say, for example, you want to sell a horse. Is using the same techniques on those photo's that you will put on a sales site an ethical thing to do? Like using a brush-up techniques to make the horse look like it has more muscle than it does in real life?

 

[Markshot 12]

Fast food restaurants have been doing that for decades. When was the last time you got a sandwich from one of those places that look like it was on T.V.? Everybody knows it isn't real. It's a running joke almost everywhere.

 

[ePIC]

I think there is a fine line to walk when it comes to this, but I don't think the responsibility should really land on the professional though. I don't think it does publically anyway. Whenever there's an outcry from the public it's not like anyone tries to blame the photographer or videographer. It's the company itself and the ad execs who get thrown into the fire.

 

[Vivid]

I see nothing wrong with this, but I presume that a horse lover would prefer to go through unedited photos that give the exact appearance. Again, as a seller, you would want to do everything to attract a client. There is a thin line here!

 

[Lighthouse]

If you airbrush an animal to make it appear healthier than it actually is, that's deceit if you're trying to sell it. Models are airbrushed, but the models aren't for sale. Just the clothes or makeup they're wearing.